GM to make e-bikes
11-09-18, 09:14 AM
#51
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,957
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,527 Times
in
1,040 Posts
"Whatever benefits" means whatever they, you or cooker can fantasize.
11-09-18, 11:30 PM
#53
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,957
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,527 Times
in
1,040 Posts
Something else, perhaps to humor a handful of in-house hipsters or gullible yokels infatuated by shiny pseudo-trendy baubles or crowd-sourced naming contests; who knows, since manufacture and sales of this niche product hardly makes any economic or practical sense as a business enterprise for GM.
11-10-18, 06:41 AM
#54
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Sales? Ha, ha!
Something else, perhaps to humor a handful of in-house hipsters or gullible yokels infatuated by shiny pseudo-trendy baubles or crowd-sourced naming contests; who knows, since manufacture and sales of this niche product hardly makes any economic or practical sense as a business enterprise for GM.
Something else, perhaps to humor a handful of in-house hipsters or gullible yokels infatuated by shiny pseudo-trendy baubles or crowd-sourced naming contests; who knows, since manufacture and sales of this niche product hardly makes any economic or practical sense as a business enterprise for GM.
Are you saying that they're just trying to make some employees happy by letting them BS themselves that GM is on the side of sustainability progress? Does that mean you think their ultimate goal is to just keep selling more cars and trucks and continue to protect and preserve the ubiquitous-driving societal vision?
11-10-18, 09:44 AM
#55
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,957
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,527 Times
in
1,040 Posts
How would humoring anyone have any benefits to GM unless it translated into increased stock buy-in and/or increased product sales?
Are you saying that they're just trying to make some employees happy by letting them BS themselves that GM is on the side of sustainability progress? Does that mean you think their ultimate goal is to just keep selling more cars and trucks and continue to protect and preserve the ubiquitous-driving societal vision?
Are you saying that they're just trying to make some employees happy by letting them BS themselves that GM is on the side of sustainability progress? Does that mean you think their ultimate goal is to just keep selling more cars and trucks and continue to protect and preserve the ubiquitous-driving societal vision?
GM's ultimate goal is to just keep making profits, and for the foreseeable future that is by selling more cars and trucks.
11-10-18, 11:21 AM
#56
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
So when they put forth a multimodal vision and say they're going to make ebikes, that is really just to make potential customers feel warm and fuzzy while signing a contract to make $400/month payments on a new Ram pickup?
11-10-18, 01:43 PM
#57
Prefers Cicero
I listed what I thought their potential motivations were in post 10. Ultimately it's about making money, of course, but there's no law that says they can only make money off cars and trucks. We've already heard they make money leveraging their vehicle sales to sell loans. Ultimately they'll go where the money is.
Last edited by cooker; 11-10-18 at 08:41 PM.
11-10-18, 06:23 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
GM is not looking to downsize or to move people from private vehicles to Ebike they are trying to add Ebikes to the option list, like a radio, and to get their name in front of the advertisers.
Always has been that way always will be.
Last edited by Mobile 155; 11-10-18 at 06:26 PM.
11-10-18, 06:34 PM
#59
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
GM doesn’t sell Ram pickups. GM does own the finance company. If they do like Mitsubishi did a few years ago and add a bicycle in the trunk to the bottom line of the vehicle $1500.00 to $2500.00 ebike gets financed for 24 to 48 months at what ever percent the going rate is. Whoever makes their ebike and their employees get a piece, GM and GMAC get a piece and the UAW gets a piece.
GM is not looking to downsize or to move people from private vehicles to Ebike they are trying to add Ebikes to the option list, like a radio, and to get their name in front of the advertisers.
Always has been that way always will be.
Actually, I may be interpolating too much into this statement:
"The e-bike is one more way in which General Motors is thinking about creating this vision of zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion," Cathcart said.
It may help, but all those cars take up a lot of space on a lot of pavement; space that could be used for living soil and trees growing in it.
Last edited by tandempower; 11-10-18 at 06:42 PM.
11-10-18, 08:10 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
That sounds plausible, but it contradicts the official story of wanting to promote multimodalism to reduce congestion and environmental problems associated with automotive transportation.
Actually, I may be interpolating too much into this statement:
I've read other articles now that stress GM is not looking to discourage car buying in any way. They just think that taking a bike for short trips will help reduce crashes, emissions, and congestion.
It may help, but all those cars take up a lot of space on a lot of pavement; space that could be used for living soil and trees growing in it.
Actually, I may be interpolating too much into this statement:
I've read other articles now that stress GM is not looking to discourage car buying in any way. They just think that taking a bike for short trips will help reduce crashes, emissions, and congestion.
It may help, but all those cars take up a lot of space on a lot of pavement; space that could be used for living soil and trees growing in it.
I don’t know the specific motivation for getting into Ebikes but I am pretty sure it isn’t to reduce car sales. It may be a hole in the market they want to fill. I do know from being in the corporate world for many years that if what ever they do drops profits for two quarters managers will be looking for a new job by the last quarter reports. And Ram is a Chrysler product. I believe they are now part of Fiat. Now called FCA. They would be happy to sell anyone giving up a GM vehicle one of theirs.
11-10-18, 08:37 PM
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
if you have ever sat in a corporate staff meeting you would know a press release has nothing to do with motivation. It has to do with image and sales. If they can get skeptics to buy into their business they will tell you how their vehicles will make you live longer. If you believe it who’s fault is that?
True, but it doesn't make the lying and manipulation any less bad. It's annoying to be a person who likes to work and achieve and be productive, while knowing that so much of the business world is so immoral that you don't want to do business with them or help them any more than necessary to get by. Some people think I am lazy or an underachiever because of my minimalist economic stance, but part of it is just not wanting to support this attitude you describe of lying to manipulate people into giving up their money and then blaming it on the suckers. Don't you see any value in business being honorable?
I don’t know the specific motivation for getting into Ebikes but I am pretty sure it isn’t to reduce car sales. It may be a hole in the market they want to fill. I do know from being in the corporate world for many years that if what ever they do drops profits for two quarters managers will be looking for a new job by the last quarter reports. And Ram is a Chrysler product. I believe they are now part of Fiat. Now called FCA. They would be happy to sell anyone giving up a GM vehicle one of theirs.
As for firing people who allow sales to drop, that's terrible. They should stop pressuring markets to buy their products and just wait and see what happens to demand in a changing world. Maybe if they stop pushing, they will ultimately be a relevant company in a better functioning and happier world overall.
11-10-18, 09:16 PM
#62
☢
if you have ever sat in a corporate staff meeting you would know a press release has nothing to do with motivation. It has to do with image and sales. If they can get skeptics to buy into their business they will tell you how their vehicles will make you live longer. If you believe it who’s fault is that?
It has to do with corporate image. The implementation and development of the Chevy Volt is the best example I can think of that.
Maybe? Or its an additional advertisement to boost their eco image.
No longer. The truck line is just RAM now.
I don’t know the specific motivation for getting into Ebikes but I am pretty sure it isn’t to reduce car sales. It may be a hole in the market they want to fill. I do know from being in the corporate world for many years that if what ever they do drops profits for two quarters managers will be looking for a new job by the last quarter reports.
And Ram is a Chrysler product. I believe they are now part of Fiat. Now called FCA. They would be happy to sell anyone giving up a GM vehicle one of theirs.
11-10-18, 11:15 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
To be honest I don’t have stock in GM so as far as I am concerned they can do as they wish. They answer to stock holders and if they don’t perform financially they can be replaced. It is not a moral issue to me.
When I see an advertisement for a product making claims I suspect aren’t true I just shrug my shoulders and remember the idea once told me by my grandmother, buyer beware, Caveat Emptor.
Who here “Believes”. GM is interested in decreasing the profits driven by car sales? No one that ever took a business class I am sure.
Last edited by Mobile 155; 11-10-18 at 11:18 PM.
11-11-18, 10:13 AM
#64
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Actually, you are right here, but if you took your view to its full implications, then we could simply work hard to cut down automotive demand as much as possible and all the lost jobs and lost revenues would just be chalked off to change. If people lose their jobs, they can just adapt their lifestyles and find some other way to prosper. Ideally that's what should happen with LCF, i.e. people buying less cars, thus stimulating the economy less with auto-related spending/revenues, and then the currency deflating or whatever other economic reforms have to occur to make everything work out well for everyone. But you are one of the people always saying that people have to make more money instead of less, so the automotive companies have to maintain their sales. That pressure to manipulate markets and prevent change is a huge obstruction to progress and reform of various kinds. If your attitude of acceptance regarding investors not making money and moving on was taken to its full implications, things would be fine; but it's not. They are always pushing for management (and government) to provide them with high returns so they don't just have to sit on their money and wait for deflation to increase its value.
11-11-18, 12:29 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
Actually, you are right here, but if you took your view to its full implications, then we could simply work hard to cut down automotive demand as much as possible and all the lost jobs and lost revenues would just be chalked off to change. If people lose their jobs, they can just adapt their lifestyles and find some other way to prosper. Ideally that's what should happen with LCF, i.e. people buying less cars, thus stimulating the economy less with auto-related spending/revenues, and then the currency deflating or whatever other economic reforms have to occur to make everything work out well for everyone. But you are one of the people always saying that people have to make more money instead of less, so the automotive companies have to maintain their sales. That pressure to manipulate markets and prevent change is a huge obstruction to progress and reform of various kinds. If your attitude of acceptance regarding investors not making money and moving on was taken to its full implications, things would be fine; but it's not. They are always pushing for management (and government) to provide them with high returns so they don't just have to sit on their money and wait for deflation to increase its value.
My goals and wants do not have to commingle with LCF. I have no need to want to cut back in prosperity just because it is uncomfortable for a few minimalist. They can fight and lobby for their picture of the future and succeed or fail it falls on them alone.
Your version of the future is 180 degrees out from mine so we aren’t working for the same things. So from taken from my perspective “we” should all be working for increased prosperity not less. As I said 180 degrees out from minimalist. GM should listen to people interested in their products not to people opposed in my opinion.
11-11-18, 02:08 PM
#66
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
what “we” should all work for is by no means unified.
My goals and wants do not have to commingle with LCF. I have no need to want to cut back in prosperity just because it is uncomfortable for a few minimalist. They can fight and lobby for their picture of the future and succeed or fail it falls on them alone.
Your version of the future is 180 degrees out from mine so we aren’t working for the same things. So from taken from my perspective “we” should all be working for increased prosperity not less. As I said 180 degrees out from minimalist. GM should listen to people interested in their products not to people opposed in my opinion.
11-11-18, 02:22 PM
#67
Forum Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 20,624
Bikes: Fuji SL2.1 Carbon Di2 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 4 Trek Checkpoint ALR-5 Viscount Aerospace Pro Colnago Classic Rabobank Schwinn Waterford PMount Raleigh C50 Cromoly Hybrid Legnano Tipo Roma Pista
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3084 Post(s)
Liked 6,543 Times
in
3,756 Posts
edit: I see this has been addressed above. Carry on.
11-11-18, 03:16 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
If GM discovers adding an Ebike as an accessory can increase the sales of GM vehicles they should be recognized for their contribution to the stock holders and employees alike. That is how our system is supposed to work.
If someone disagrees with that system they are free to try to live outside of the system. They just shouldn’t be shocked when people don’t share in that vision.
11-11-18, 03:43 PM
#69
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
let me simplify this for you. If someone is working for GM and they are being paid to produce a profit for the stock holders that is what they should do. If however those same people decide to abandon their mandate and for some social concept decide to leave the profit making portion of the company they should lose their position. Just like a stock boy that will not bag groceries for a customer when that is part of what they get paid for.
If GM discovers adding an Ebike as an accessory can increase the sales of GM vehicles they should be recognized for their contribution to the stock holders and employees alike. That is how our system is supposed to work.
If someone disagrees with that system they are free to try to live outside of the system. They just shouldn’t be shocked when people don’t share in that vision.
11-11-18, 05:54 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
And what happens to the car companies' sales and revenues when they fail to keep the appropriate amount of motor-vehicles on the roads to accomplish visible progress toward less traffic congestion, a better environment, and improvements in sustainability/climate forecasts? Do the people who fought for their jobs by upping sales still get to keep their jobs then, or do they get the blame for creating the situation where public opinion regarding automakers and oil companies is generally degenerating?
Public opinion is not just what advocates say it is. Public opinion is how people vote with their wallets. Besides since when is a minimalist interested in public opinion?
11-11-18, 08:18 PM
#71
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
Oh but I would wager on it. And it'd be a pretty good bet too. Its not their capability that's in question, rather their stodgy stuck in the past management that holds them back. Profit over brand loyalty only goes so far; and that's what got them into trouble in the first place.
Consumers aren't going to continue to buy cars with built-in obsolescence. Build a quality, reliable product, and they will come. Lexus taught the industry that.
Consumers aren't going to continue to buy cars with built-in obsolescence. Build a quality, reliable product, and they will come. Lexus taught the industry that.
Today many cars are derivatives of other models or they share common parts and powertrains. A Toyota Avalon is a deluxe Camry.
In the Asian electronics industry due to economic pressures may brands have parts made by 'competitors' and companies like Onkyo and Pioneer, Kenwood and I think JVC, Denon and Marantz are co-owned.
Durability is groovy. It's probably not to be completely expected in US traffic and at our favored speeds and with our driving habits. It's also not always a given factor you can design for.
Of course we are sidetracking merely because of the maker of that bike. For every pig in a poke there is a sow's ear silk purse.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Last edited by Rollfast; 11-11-18 at 08:22 PM.
11-11-18, 08:23 PM
#72
Senior Member
GM versus Me.. 1992/1993 or so, GM took me to court, they "fixed a fuel injection/fuel pump problem" and then declined my warranty did NOT cover it, On a less than 1 year old 4X4 Diesel truck with less than 12,000 miles on it, I said I will pay for it when "a judge said I should pay for it"... SSSOOOoo, GM took me to small claims court, got a mechanic to say it was my fault that "water was in my fuel system" and I was found liable… I paid the $1,200 fuel pump problem and when we got to the parking lot, the person who represented GM was parked right beside me in the parkade... 
I was now driving a FORD... I told him I would never buy a GM ever again... Sometime in the 2.000s GM seemed to have gone and went bankrupt, for some reason. 
I would like to think I had something to do with that... 
I was now driving a FORD... I told him I would never buy a GM ever again... Sometime in the 2.000s GM seemed to have gone and went bankrupt, for some reason. I would like to think I had something to do with that...
11-11-18, 08:46 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
GM versus Me.. 1992/1993 or so, GM took me to court, they "fixed a fuel injection/fuel pump problem" and then declined my warranty did NOT cover it, On a less than 1 year old 4X4 Diesel truck with less than 12,000 miles on it, I said I will pay for it when "a judge said I should pay for it"... SSSOOOoo, GM took me to small claims court, got a mechanic to say it was my fault that "water was in my fuel system" and I was found liable… I paid the $1,200 fuel pump problem and when we got to the parking lot, the person who represented GM was parked right beside me in the parkade... I was now driving a FORD... I told him I would never buy a GM ever again... Sometime in the 2.000s GM seemed to have gone and went bankrupt, for some reason. I would like to think I had something to do with that...
I was now driving a FORD... I told him I would never buy a GM ever again... Sometime in the 2.000s GM seemed to have gone and went bankrupt, for some reason. I would like to think I had something to do with that...
11-11-18, 09:00 PM
#74
Senior Member
Last edited by 350htrr; 11-11-18 at 09:51 PM. Reason: spelling
